- x Foman123 x
- |
- Master Forum Ninja
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: x Foman123 x
it puts new members at a trust level slightly below trusted members, regardless of the length of their membership.
So you fluffed it up a bit and added some italics. It still says the same thing. New members, by their very existence as new members, are inferior to the general average membership.
No, no it doesn't say the same thing. You have changed your statement. Before you said that new members were inferior to long-term members. No. They are simply less trusted than trusted members, to say the obvious, and a long-term member could be an untrusted one just as easily as he or she could be trusted.
Prove yourself untrustworthy, and you become restricted in your permitted actions.
You're changing it around here. Your concept was first to prove yourself trustworthy.
The concept is that everybody starts at a middle ground and becomes more or less trusted based on their actions. This is no different from the way you act in real life, unless you're a sociopath.
So why on Earth are you fighting so hard to say that something like this is "wrong"? What fundamental moral value is being violated? What negative consequences are so dire that this idea reeks of "snobbery" and "elitism"? Are you serious?
You consider yourself a trustworthy member. Judging by your posts, your ideal trustworthy member is, in fact, you. Therefore, your conept is to place members such as yourself, on a level above other members. This is sheer snobbery.
Another blatant misstatement. I have no idea what a trusted member is -- that depends on the "stealth trust-rating" system. It has little or nothing to do with my own personal feelings, as I have said all along. Come on, elmicker, now you're just making crap up.
Straw man, you hypocrite.
Straw man: The arguer makes up a proposition never offered by her opponent (usually weaker than the true proposition) and then attacks it as if his opponent had offered that proposition. This is most common on Internet chat sites.
I didn't make up any propositions. Your concepts split the community by virtue of your personal concept of trust. The 24 hour filter is an anti-spam tool. As such, i'm in favour of the latter as a necessary evil, but very opposed to the former.
"You're trying to split the community in two." I never said anything like that, or even close to that. Now you're making things up again by saying that this is based on my personal concept of trust -- I've never said any such thing and have always related this entirely to the automated user-trust rating system embedded in this website. Last time I checked, that system has never asked me for my opinion.
You don't think that blacklisting a bad poster is a positive effect?
Blacklisting? Way to straw man my argument. Again. No one had previously mentioned blacklisting - yet you raise it as a weaker argument than the one i actually presented, and then attack it.What? Um dude you said that there were no positive effects arising from restricting users' posts.... hello?
Again - you're automatically assuming that new members need restricting. New members should, as much as possible, be brought into the community as full members, and encouraged to take part as equals. Restricting them upon joining is essentially saying "-blam!- you, i was here first, prove yourself and you can join me up here."
I disagree.
This idea does not split anybody
So... what does it do? It grades members based on a trust scale, and restricts them based on that. This splits the community into those who are free to do as they wish, and those who are heavily restricted. Roughly speaking, the trusted, and those who are not. A split community.
How is that any different from what we already have here? Blacklisted users and non-blacklisted users -- an even larger restriction.
have you seen the community projects I've been involved in?
No. Most of them take place in private groups or off site - something else i may choose to rant at you about if you raise it in the future. Try searching for the 7th Column council project.I'm familiar with that god-awful failure.
And I still believe that it would be appropriate to restrict new members under this idea.
And that's probably the only reason most people are opposed to this.Yes, just look at all the people who have posted here supporting you. You're really winning this one.
However, aside from the idealistic flaws, it's just a stupid system. Why restrict posting using an overcomplex system based on an unproven and probably unreliable trust system, when you can just ban the tossers? All you're left with then is the promotion segment of your concept, which brings us to what it's really about. Another thinly veiled attempt to institute your previously suggested Senior/Veteran member status.OMG no it's not. Get real dude. I have no problem with defending that idea on its own merits. This idea, however, has nothing to do with status.
If someone is to be trusted with any priveleges over the normal membership, then they should probably just be promoted as moderators. Your system serves no purpose. It doesn't stop spam, it wouldn't improve the quality of posts and it wouldn't improve the quality of the membership. As such, there's no reason to institute it. I could've said that at the start, but watching you put so much effort into pointless posts is almost funny, at times.Quit rubbing yourself. It takes no effort to destroy your arguments, those marvelous displays of weak thinking encased in faux-eloquent wording. But I will admit that you have been extremely brave, so good for you.
I've also been asked to direct you to #moap (go here and type /j #moap). Several people watching this exchange have been looking to chat to you in a more informal environment.This is not a formal environment. Tell them to post here. I don't get IRC from this computer.
LATE EDIT: Okay, I lost my cool a bit here. Sorry to anyone I may have offended.
[Edited on 08.01.2007 9:50 PM PDT]